71–76 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
aren't lawyers usually not allowed at arbitration? (isn't that part of the whole point)?
You may be thinking of small claims courts, where some states don't allow lawyers. Arbitration follows whatever rules the arbitration organization chooses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is worse than click bait; the headline is a falsehood designed to provoke outrage. WF is NOT arguing that customers are bound by forged signatures, despite what this headline implies. This is Fake News making the rounds. Good job HN.
you use really strong language (even in your username) and since it's just 27 days old, perhaps could make another one. with that said, I think if you suggested an alternative title (under your handle or a different one) that better reflects the contents of the article, the mods would be inclined to change it. They often do - and clickbait titles are explicitly against HN policy :) so go ahead and make a suggested ti…
At the very least, link to the original Reuters article, and make a note to quit giving BoingBoing hits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trick is to let them fail, then rapidly sift through the pieces and sell anything off which still has value. Even failing banks have plenty of good loans. Ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government because the general public cannot evaluate the risk of a bank collapsing. There's probably a case for some protection for companies that hold accounts -- although companies should really be awar…
You say "ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government", and then go on to say something to the effect of 'oh yeah, and these other things which I think are good , but screw big companies, then can get fucked'. Which seems to translate, at least in my mind, to 'banks should be too big to fail, but only in the ways I like'. It's not clear, under your scheme, how we would draw the line between comp…
I didn't say any of that. Banks should never be too big to fail. The only question is which of the bank's account holders should the government preferentially bail out by printing money equivalent to the holders' deposits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you use really strong language (even in your username) and since it's just 27 days old, perhaps could make another one. with that said, I think if you suggested an alternative title (under your handle or a different one) that better reflects the contents of the article, the mods would be inclined to change it. They often do - and clickbait titles are explicitly against HN policy :) so go ahead and make a suggested ti…
Yet despite the user name, despite the strong language, cnnsucks is right: it's a crap, click-bait headline. Don't believe me? Then you go RTFA, and better yet go read the Reuters article from whence this sprang. Still convinced that the headline has anything to do with the truth? (And to be clear, the headline implies that customers agreed via forged signatures. No, customers "agreed" with their real signature when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talk to a lawyer in your local jurisdiction. :) But offhand: > Is there anything in the law about good faith in contracts? Not in the sense you mean, no. Generally speaking, if they sign it in bad faith (that is, with no intent to comply), and they do not comply, that would be fraud (ie, a crime). If they sign it in good faith (that is, with an intent to comply) but later do not comply, that's breach of contract (ie,…
But why? If one can prove that a party premeditated and willfully went against the terms of the contract in order to deceive the other party and profited from this deceit while also breaking laws, what is the legal reasoning behind calling it a breach instead of fraud?
> But why?
Because that's what the law says. :)
> If one can prove that a party premeditated and willfully went against the terms of the contract in order to deceive the other party and profited from this deceit while also breaking laws
Very, very simply: If you lied, it's fraud. If you didn't lie, then it's not fraud. It might well be some other crime, but it's not fraud, because fraud is a word that means lying. So you say:
> went against the terms of the contract in order to deceive
But it depends what you mean by that. If I meant to follow the contract when I sign it, but later change my mind, and you just assume I'm following it, you are deceived, but I didn't lie, and it's not fraud. If I didn't mean to follow it when I signed it then I'm lying and it's fraud. Similarly if I mean to follow it when I sign, later change my mind, and you then ask me "hey, are you following the contract?", and I say "yes" even though I'm not, then I'm lying, and it's fraud. The key element isn't whether or not you were deceived, or whether or not I actually followed the contract, but whether I lied, because that's what the crime is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why? If one can prove that a party premeditated and willfully went against the terms of the contract in order to deceive the other party and profited from this deceit while also breaking laws, what is the legal reasoning behind calling it a breach instead of fraud?
Fraud is a crime; a general definition might be "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain", but in simple terms it's lying. If you lie to someone for financial gain, it's a crime. But violating the terms of a contract is not a crime, at least in the general case. > But why? Because that's what the law says. :) > If one can prove that a party premeditated and willfully went against the terms of the contr…
From this post and the article you linked above, the takeaway I get is to ask everyday "Are you following the contract?" I understand the legal definition, but I gather that the layman will still think it's fraud.
I guess a simple solution in that scenario would be to have a checkbox asking are you following the contract every time they login to the server.
Thanks, I learned a lot from you! :D